Ketubot 106b — the Talmud in English

Vessels of service,

which are used for the service of the offerings on the outer altar, which itself is a building and not a vessel—

what shall they make them from: the consecrated funds for Temple repairs?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Whether the vessels of service

are “needed for the altar,” and

therefore

they come from the consecrated funds for Temple repairs,

they come from them.

Or

the vessels of service

are “needed for the offering,” and they were made from the contribution of the chamber,

from the money designated for the offerings

were they made?

Introduction

The communal offerings came every year from the half-shekel that each and every one of the Israelites contributed each year. And they would gather all the shekels in the chamber, and contribute shekels from them into three chests, and from these three chests they would purchase the communal offerings.

If additional money was needed to purchase communal offerings, they would return and contribute from the shekels in the chamber into the chests.

With the money in the chests, besides purchasing the communal offerings, they would make additional uses for the needs of the community, as will be explained below.

The money that remained in these chests was called “the surplus of the contribution of the chamber,” and there were also certain uses for it.

Whereas the money that remained in the chamber after they had taken from it the contribution of the chamber, and after the year had passed, and they would no longer take contributions from it, was called “the surplus of the chamber,” and there were also certain uses for it.

Likewise, in the Temple there was an authority of “consecrated funds for Temple repairs,” under whose authority were all the property and contributions that were not consecrated funds for the altar. With this property they would repair or build all the structures in the Temple.

He said to him: No,

vessels of service

are made only from the contribution of the chamber.

He raised an objection to him

from that which is written in II Chronicles [chapter 24], concerning the collection for Temple repairs that was made in the days of King Jehoash:

“When they had finished

building and repairing the Temple,

they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada.

And he made it into vessels for the House of the Lord, vessels of service.”

And it is proven that the vessels of service are made from money for Temple repairs.

He said to him:

Who

read to you,

who read and taught you

the Writings—

you were not read the Prophets!

For it is written in the Former Prophets, in II Kings [chapter 12]:

“Only it shall not be made

from the money designated for repairing

the House of the Lord, bowls,

golden vessels, silver vessels—

for they shall give it to the workers.”

And it is proven that they do not use money for Temple repairs for the purpose of making vessels of service.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, the verses contradict one another!

And we answer:

It is not difficult—

Here, where they collected and there was a surplus,

where money remained beyond the need for Temple repairs, then it was permitted to make vessels of service from the surplus money.

Here, where they collected and there was no surplus,

and since there was a need for the money for Temple repairs, they do not make vessels of service from it.

And we refute this:

But when they collected and there was a surplus—

what of it?

After all, they did not collect it for the sanctity of an offering, but for the needs of Temple repairs, and how is it possible to change its sanctity?

Rabbi Abbahu said: “The heart of the court” stipulates concerning them,

that

if they are needed

for Temple repairs—

they are needed,

and their sanctity is not to be changed.

But if not,

that there should remain surplus money—

it shall be for vessels of service.

A tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Vessels of service come from the contribution of the chamber.

As it is stated

there, in Chronicles,

“the rest of the money.

And he made it into vessels for the House of the Lord, vessels of service.”

What money has “remnants”?—

You must say: This is the contribution of the chamber.

For they take a contribution from the money collected from all Israel into three chests, for the purpose of purchasing the offerings with the money that was “contributed” into the chests. And the remainder of the money that remained in the chamber is the “remnants.”

And therefore the vessels of service must be made from the money in the chests, because this money has remnants that remained in the chamber.

And we refute this:

And say

why should it not be said that this verse teaches that vessels of service should be made from the money of the

remnants

that remained in the chamber

themselves,

and not from the money contributed into the three chests? For after all, the verse speaks of making the vessels from “the rest of the money”!

And we answer: Since the word “the money” was written with the definite article, the vessels must be made from the important money, which was contributed into the chests, and not from the remnants—

as Rava said

concerning the offering of the daily burnt offering in the morning: “

And he shall arrange upon it

the burnt offering [

morning daily offering]”—the definite article teaches that the daily burnt offering must be important, and therefore it shall be the

first offering

in the morning, so that another offering should not precede it.

Here too,

what the verse said, that they made the vessels of service from “the remainder of

the money”—

the first money,

which is important money, contributed into the chests for the offerings, and not from the remainder of the money!

He raised an objection

to what we learned, that vessels of service come from the contribution of the chamber, from that which was taught in a beraita:

The incense and all communal offerings—

come from the contribution of the chamber.

The golden altar and frankincense

and vessels of service—

come from “the surplus of libations,”

and the amoraim disagreed in tractate Menahot about what “the surplus of libations” is [see Rashi].

The altar of the burnt offering, the chambers, and the courtyards—

come from the consecrated funds for Temple repairs.

Outside the wall of the courtyard—

come from the remnants of the chambers.

And

this is what we learned: The wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city—

come from the remnants of the chamber!

And it is proven from this beraita that the vessels of service are not made from the contribution of the chamber!

And we answer: It is a dispute;

it is a dispute among the tannaim,

who disagreed about this matter.

For we learned

in tractate Shekalim [chapter four, halakha 2]:

The surplus of the contribution—

what would they do with it?—

Gold sheets, plating for the Holy of Holies.

Rabbi Ishmael says:

The surplus of produce [

the profits that the consecrated funds earned from the offerings, as will be explained below]—

for the summering of the altar,

to offer upon it communal voluntary burnt offerings when there are no other offerings to offer upon it, so that the altar should not be desolate.

And this matter is called “summering,” because communal voluntary offerings come after the offering of the principal offerings that are obligatory, similar to sweet fruits that come for dessert after the meal.

The surplus of the contribution—

for vessels of service.

Rabbi Akiva says: The surplus of the contribution—

for the summering of the altar.

The surplus of libations—

for vessels of service.

Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, says:

The surplus of libations—

for the summering of the altar.

The surplus of the contribution—

for vessels of service.

And both of them,

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests,

did not agree concerning produce,

because in their view one does not conduct commerce for profit with the money of the consecrated funds.

And it follows that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, who holds that vessels of service are made from the contribution of the chamber, is like what we find that Rabbi Ishmael himself holds; whereas Rabbi Akiva disagrees with him.

And we examine it:

“Produce”—

what is it?

And we answer:

For it was taught: The surplus of the contribution—what would they do with it?—

They would purchase produce cheaply and sell it

expensively. And the profit,

the profit received—

with it they would summer the altar.

And this is what we learned: The surplus of produce—

for the summering of the altar.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “both of them did not agree concerning produce”?

For we learned: The surplus of the remnants of the chamber—

what would they do with them?

They would purchase with them wines, oils, and fine flour, and the profit would belong to the consecrated funds; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: One does not profit with the consecrated funds,

and

even not

profit

with the property of the poor.

The Gemara explains the reason of Rabbi Akiva:

With the consecrated funds, what is the reason that one may not

profit?—For

there is no poverty in a place of wealth.

With the property of the poor, what is the reason that one may not?—

Perhaps a poor person will happen upon them, and there will be nothing with which to give him,

perhaps a poor person will happen upon the charity collectors, and they will not have the possibility of giving him money, since it will be invested in producing a profit for charity.